RE: Speeders don't crash more
Thursday 27th April 2006
Speeders don't crash moreResearch commissioned by eight Midlands camera partnerships, published today, claims that drivers with speeding points have more crashes.
Speeders don't crash more
Campaign refutes bogus 'dangerous speeders' claims
Speeders don't crash more
Road safety campaign Safe Speed said that many insurance companies, who work from comprehensive data, disagree and do not load the premiums of drivers with only a few speeding points.
That isn't the only problem with the claims, according to Safe Speed:
- Although the claim is being made that there has been some correction for 'risk exposure' (obviously drivers who do higher mileages are more exposed to the risk of crashes and more exposed to the risk of speeding convictions) we have no confidence that the correction has been carried out properly. After all, for an insurance company, you would think that speeding convictions would function as an exposure proxy. Because of the greater exposure we do expect those with more convictions to be more crash involved. But if many insurance companies are not even finding that effect, then it seems likely that mile for mile, those with speeding convictions are less likely to be crash involved.
- If speeding convictions made drivers safer, then we should expect the opposite effect to that claimed. Convicted drivers should have become safer. If convicted drivers are more crash involved then clearly the system isn't working to make the roads safer.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "I believe that this research is nonsense, strongly influenced by pre-conceptions and vested interests. Speed cameras do not identify risky drivers nor do they make our roads safer.
"It's junk science, and junk science makes our roads more dangerous because it tends to cause life-saving resources to be misallocated. This is the fundamental reason that speed cameras have proved to be a road safety disaster. Everyone -- drivers, police, highways authorities and many road safety groups -- is expending resources on the wrong safety factor. Had those same resources been allocated efficiently, we would now be down to around 2,000 road deaths per year. We're over 1,000 lives a year behind schedule and I am certain that speed cameras are at the centre of the problem.
"Our speed cameras are all in the wrong places - they should be in the scrap yard."
Discussion
So what are they trying to prove here -
Is it that drivers who spot speed camera's whilst driving are more likely to notice other hazards?
Drivers with road angels or the like and laser jammers / detectors are safer drivers?
I would have thought most people are guilty of speeding at some point, however slightly or infrequently.
This is more rubbish to try and justify these things when its becoming clear they do not work.
Is it that drivers who spot speed camera's whilst driving are more likely to notice other hazards?
Drivers with road angels or the like and laser jammers / detectors are safer drivers?
I would have thought most people are guilty of speeding at some point, however slightly or infrequently.
This is more rubbish to try and justify these things when its becoming clear they do not work.
The fact that the camera businesses have commissioned more of their own research in an attempt to justify their activities is not a new thing. They have released similar "research" before. Every time, it's known to be complete rubbish and the insurance companies know it. In fact genuine, non-vested-interest surveys have been produced before to show cameras aren't working, I recall one by the RAC Foundation some time ago.
"Our speed cameras are all in the wrong places - they should be in the scrap yard."
totally agree with that! red light cameras are ok!
for the rest, fix some video cameras at some roads whre they need to find dangerous drivers, or where it can be dangerous...that way you can find, see and proof he/she acted dangerous by some moves or other ways...but not on some point or at some point a bit speeding...thats is not dangerous where road aloud or in a wide open area and no traffic?...
GTRene
totally agree with that! red light cameras are ok!
for the rest, fix some video cameras at some roads whre they need to find dangerous drivers, or where it can be dangerous...that way you can find, see and proof he/she acted dangerous by some moves or other ways...but not on some point or at some point a bit speeding...thats is not dangerous where road aloud or in a wide open area and no traffic?...
GTRene
IF this is true the crashes are probably caused due the driver being distracted by two bright flashes in their rear view mirror. If this is not enought to distract them then the following miles of shouting by said driver's partner are surely going to increase the possibility of distraction. Lets just scrap the cameras.
Did anyone else read about what happened in Canada? They took the cameras away and deaths actually fell...
Also, it is only the least attentive drivers I know with speeding tickets, not the fastest...so I imgaine the correlation is right, if you are not going to spot a large yellow box then the likelihood of crashing into something else too must be much higher!
Also, it is only the least attentive drivers I know with speeding tickets, not the fastest...so I imgaine the correlation is right, if you are not going to spot a large yellow box then the likelihood of crashing into something else too must be much higher!
Pete M said:
Did anyone else read about what happened in Canada? They took the cameras away and deaths actually fell...
Also, it is only the least attentive drivers I know with speeding tickets, not the fastest...so I imgaine the correlation is right, if you are not going to spot a large yellow box then the likelihood of crashing into something else too must be much higher!
True, a friend of mine recently went on a speeding course after being caught by a big yellow box. A month later he drove into the back of a Range Rover and wrote his car off! He's not a very practical person, he's a GP too but better at that!
Big yellow boxes aren't the only ticket issuer though, as we all know there are expanding amounts of camera vans that can be much harder to spot.
Some people even want to have cameras hidden! So it's not always a result of being inattentive, it's sometimes a case of how sneaky is the speed trap.
deeps said:
Big yellow boxes aren't the only ticket issuer though, as we all know there are expanding amounts of camera vans that can be much harder to spot.
Some people even want to have cameras hidden! So it's not always a result of being inattentive, it's sometimes a case of how sneaky is the speed trap.
Could there possibly be any responsibility on the part of the driver? Or is it always someone elses fault?
7db said:
Big yellow boxes aren't the only ticket issuer though, as we all know there are expanding amounts of camera vans that can be much harder to spot.
Some people even want to have cameras hidden! So it's not always a result of being inattentive, it's sometimes a case of how sneaky is the speed trap.
Could there possibly be any responsibility on the part of the driver? Or is it always someone elses fault?
Read it again don't just flick your eyes over it. Silly little man.Ive said it before somewhere, cars in Dubai used to have an audio alarm when you reached 70mph, perhaps its time to introduce them here, with the proviso to set them at whatever limit you want, and to mute them.
That way there really would not be the excuses, of "I wasnt looking at my speedo", or "I was distracted", if said limit was set at 80 for motorways, when it bleeped, you would know you had reached 80mph.
I personally dont have a problem with limits, I use my cruise control, works wonders, doesnt suit everybody I know.
That way there really would not be the excuses, of "I wasnt looking at my speedo", or "I was distracted", if said limit was set at 80 for motorways, when it bleeped, you would know you had reached 80mph.
I personally dont have a problem with limits, I use my cruise control, works wonders, doesnt suit everybody I know.
deeps said:
Big yellow boxes aren't the only ticket issuer though, as we all know there are expanding amounts of camera vans that can be much harder to spot.
Some people even want to have cameras hidden! So it's not always a result of being inattentive, it's sometimes a case of how sneaky is the speed trap.
Could there possibly be any responsibility on the part of the driver? Or is it always someone elses fault?
No need to be rude. Although you do demonstrate a continued ability to state what you do not know to be true.
I'll ask again. Is there any responsibility on the shoulders of the driver to avoid getting points? Is there *anything* that they can do to avoid this scourge of random speed-trapping that you claim is out there.
Be interesting to see what happened to the accident rate if all scameras were covered for a month.
Pratnerships would never allow it as might, and probably would, undermine their reason for existing. Treasury wouldn't like it as the fines are a) keeping down the unemployment figures, b) helping to plug the gaping hole in Gordon's finances.
Pratnerships would never allow it as might, and probably would, undermine their reason for existing. Treasury wouldn't like it as the fines are a) keeping down the unemployment figures, b) helping to plug the gaping hole in Gordon's finances.
dogwatch said:Yes very interesting!
Be interesting to see what happened to the accident rate if all scameras were covered for a month.
Another thought experiment that might be worth trying. Install a button on the steering wheel of cars and get drivers to press the button when they see a speed camera. This would be a crude but reaosnable basis for measuring attention and observation. The button would send a signal to the camera unique to the driver and be stored to provide, over the course of a year, a measure of awareness / observation.
No fines for the dozy brigade, just retraining. No fines, just improved road safety.
This type of approach partly explains why vehicle activated signs (interactive driver signals) that flash up warnings of hazards e.g. bend or whatever, have proven and highly significant safety benefits. By whatever mechanism the driver is alerted to a hazard, safety will benefit.
Criminalising drivers for behaving safely in a way that contravenes an assinine law, cannot and never will do anything for road safety. And as the Stradling report shows, criminalising poorly observant drivers doesn't make them more observant, they just carry on and have more crashes and accumulate more points.
turbobloke said:
Criminalising drivers for behaving safely in a way that contravenes an assinine law, cannot and never will do anything for road safety.
Do you think that there should be no speed limits in law?
Do you think that speed limits shouldn't be enforced if they exist?
Would you prefer a law that said "upto the limit and a bit beyond if it's safe to do so".
Do you think that would be good lawmaking?
I certainly disagree with chosen limits in certain locations, but that is a different problem.
7db said:I think there should be some limits in law but with several provisos, I'm repeating myself here but whatever...
Do you think that there should be no speed limits in law?
Do you think that speed limits shouldn't be enforced if they exist?
1. speed limits where set must be based on established safety criteria i.e. 85%ile and in places where a limit will work as intended for safety reasons
2. however there will be motorway sections and some other high quality stretches of dc that could be deristricted in appropriate conditions and at appropriate times, linked to variable limits for other conditions and times
3. enforcement must be of the intelligent kind, not arbitrary, random and oppressive, and certainly not automated
4. we need to abandon the inappropriate focus on vehicle speed as the be-all and end-all of road safety, it's causing harm and diverting attention from that really matters
5. where cameras really were sited at accident hotspots but offered no benefit (i.e. all such 'hotspot' cases) interactive driver signallling should be used allied to a higher trafpol presence.
7db said:
Would you prefer a law that said "upto the limit and a bit beyond if it's safe to do so". Do you think that would be good lawmaking?
No, I prefer what always used to happen before automated enforcement - when the entire approach involved BiB using judgement and discretion in enforcing the law or educating drivers on speed related driving matters. The law is enforced with discretion in many other aspects of policing. It makes sense to do things that way.
7db said:Yes, and no!
I certainly disagree with chosen limits in certain locations, but that is a different problem.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff